I find it great that all these arguments come out about what "theory" really means when we get to discussing that evolution is one. A theory is a presupposition based on ignorance of a matter at hand. If you really knew about the matter in a more concrete way than guess work then it would be a fact.
It reminds me of Clinton and his parsing the word is. These evolutionist are willing to cling to each and every piece of flotsam in the water in order not to believe. God help them, i feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough to let them corrupt the young and curious minds of children who no longer believe it is so because the evolutionists say it is so.
The more they stop answers from coming through anything but their CULT of evolution the more they look like the catholic church demanding that science teach that the world is earth centric, and that everything revolves around the earth in our solar system instead of the sun. They are the new persecutors of those who don't buy the evolution "chic" and popular notions.
It is funny how they are so insistent that the other side not be heard. They know they live and die on the idea of "theory" so they, like clinton, do their thing and promote the idea that a theory is not a theory. Is is not is. HA they make themselves the fool.
Utterly and completely wrong. Come back to us when you have a better understanding of what a theory is in a scientific context. Currently, you're making the same mistake the other folks are making.
If you really knew about the matter in a more concrete way than guess work then it would be a fact.
Wrong again.
I really wish the people who attempted to critique science would first bother to learn something about it. Making firm pronouncements about a topic you don't know the first thing about does little to add to the discussion, and a lot to make yourself look foolish.
It reminds me of Clinton and his parsing the word is.
It may look that way to people who don't understand the subject, but it's a false impression.
Actually, *you're* the one overparsing words in order to try to "prove" your position through symantics instead of via valid argument and evidence.
Evolution isn't "just a theory", it's a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY", which is another animal entirely. And no amount of your "one definition fits all" fiddling around with the word "theory" is going to change that. Deal with it.
These evolutionist are willing to cling to each and every piece of flotsam in the water in order not to believe.
Ah, yes, the old "evolution is atheism" nonsense. Hint for the clueless: the majority of American evolutionists are Christians. Sorry if that makes your head explode.
God help them, i feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough to let them corrupt the young and curious minds of children who no longer believe it is so because the evolutionists say it is so.
Ah, yes, it "corrupts minds" to actually learn enough science to understand how the world works. Got it.
The more they stop answers from coming through anything but their CULT of evolution the more they look like the catholic church demanding that science teach that the world is earth centric, and that everything revolves around the earth in our solar system instead of the sun.
No, the more you guys ignorantly try to denounce a field of science you don't understand but are afraid of because you mistakenly think it challenges your faith or scripture, the more you continue the tradition of the kind of medieval superstition that rejected the discovery of the heliocentric solar system. You're still stuck back in the 1600's. Science has moved mankind beyond that -- but some people are still kicking and screaming, refusing to be enlightened.
They are the new persecutors of those who don't buy the evolution "chic" and popular notions.
Yeah, sure. Right. You betcha.
It is funny how they are so insistent that the other side not be heard.
You guys are "heard" all the time, and no one's stopping you. What we *are* insisting upon is that you guys stop telling falsehoods about science, and stop trying to teach your religion as if it *was* science, when it is not. In short, all we insist upon is that you stop lying, especially to schoolchildren. I'm sorry if that's too much of an imposition.
They know they live and die on the idea of "theory" so they, like clinton, do their thing and promote the idea that a theory is not a theory. Is is not is. HA they make themselves the fool.
Hey, fool, get a clue (from http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html):
But it's "JUST a THEORY"
Version 1.0
Copyright 1999 by Ken Harding
[last update August 24, 1999]
This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works.
Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution.
You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?
I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology.
Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know what happened. It's still faith." But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person-- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. For example, most Americans are convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to see him do it. The situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.
See also: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
Explanations of this same basic, elementary misunderstanding (usually by creationists) are splattered all over the internet. Is there any particular reason you didn't bother to even do a Google in order to educate yourself on the topic before you spouted off so confidently about something you're so wrong about?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
Being heard is not the issue at all. The issue is "venue". That each subject is taught in an appropriate time and place. A private church is the proper place for teaching ID, not a public school. A public school is the proper place for teaching scientific theory, not religious propaganda. The ID fanatics have strapped on their suicide belts of religious propaganda and want to set themselves off in the public schools. It will not lead to more "Christians" as they hope, but too more atheists and worse, the Koran being taught in American public schools. Be careful what you wish for.
What nonsense.
Like all creationist garbage, this argument is sheer assertion and no facts. So let me state a few facts, since I am one of the evolutionists and you are attributing opinions to me.
We don't mind people expressing their ideas about ID. What we do mind is when they want to teach it in schools and teach it as science. It is not science and it should not be in schools, or at least not in the science curriculum.
By contrast, if you want to add superstition to your curriculum, you could teach ID in the superstition class. ID belongs with Scientology, Palmistry, the occult, Wiccan, Astrology, and the rest of the superstition. So the fact is we don't "insist that the other side not be heard." We just want it characterized properly.
Your ignorance is showing. Here are some definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
"It is funny how they are so insistent that the other side not be heard. They know they live and die on the idea of "theory" so they, like clinton, do their thing and promote the idea that a theory is not a theory. Is is not is."
Bravo!!